map_reverse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions pricing but lacks details on rate limits, accuracy, supported regions, coordinate system, or response format. This is insufficient for a reverse geocoding tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in brackets and is concise. Pricing info is included but not strictly necessary; however, it does not harm readability. Efficiently communicates the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and two fully documented parameters, the description provides the bare minimum. It explains purpose and pricing but lacks context on coordinate formats, supported areas, or response details. Adequate but with gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for lat and lng. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states '逆地理(坐标→地址)' which means reverse geocode (coordinates to address), clearly indicating the tool converts latitude/longitude into an address. This distinguishes it from siblings like map_geocode (forward geocoding) and map_poi (points of interest).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have coordinates and need an address, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as map_geocode or map_poi. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.